Synchronicity; meaningful cooincidence

[sunspot]

I would like to present a topic; synchronicity or meaningful cooincidence. In essense, the occurance of events, that go beyond mere chance, which often have a meaningful implication in some psychological sense. For example, one may cross the path of the person who would become their mate. It is not uncommon for one or both people to have an urge to do something out of character which leads to this meaning cooincidence.

 

Normally one might classify such discussions as pseudo-science, but it is based on a theory that was proposed by the psychology Carl Jung to explain a range of documented cases. His willingness to address this data, led to a separation by the rest of the psychology community, who found it easier to narrow the observation field and ignor such data. It represented that no-man's land between aetheism and religion that seemed to insult both groups.

 

If one looks at such data, it is loosely analogous to fossil evidence. One does not have to reproduce a fossil in the lab to consider the data significent, yet synchronicity touches an area of science where the data is not enough, but one is also required to reproduce the data, something that is not required of other areas of science like archeology. I guess it is hard enough to look at consciousness within one human brain, rather than to have to add other variables implied by the data. It might make nature integrated (we can't have that).

 

The question I have, has anyone had an meaningful cooincidence? Let us see how much data exists.

 

I remember one night after studying collective human symbolism, via the works of Jung, I had a dream. The next day, a unknown dream symbol, I had had in my dream, appeared in the book I was reading, at a point after I had stopped the night before. Another time, I was taking an open book mid-term for a graduate math course. I just so happened to go to the library and pick up an obscure russian translation of continuum mechanics that had three of the four problems solved. Another time, I had a dream of girl who years later I met in another state; she became a girlfriend.

 

My favorite synchronicity happened while I was studying Jung. I had a severe nightmare one night. It left me in a gray funk for several days. During that time a large colorful beetle perched itself over my apartment doorway. If this was a dream, this charub beetle would have ment a symbol of protection. When my mind finally got back to normal after many days, I went outside and saw my synchronistic protector stretch his wings and fly away.

 

If any one of these things happen it would be a coincidence. But the odds of all four things happening defies statisitics.

[Sisyphus]

If any one of these things happen it would be a coincidence. But the odds of all four things happening defies statisitics.

 

I disagree completely. Of all the possible things that might happen that you find meaning in, of course it's going to happen that a lot of seemingly incredible coincidences happen over the course of a lifetime. If anything, it's surprising that you can only think of four.

[PhDP]

Well, a theory that is based on something done by Jung has a good chance of being pseudoscience. The problem with synchronicity is that it's impossible to test, AND it's based on strange egocentrical suppositions (that there's some kind of spiritual "connection" guiding things to teach you how to evolve...). And documenting improbable events is not a proof of anything, other than Jung had a poor mathematical intuition. It's nearly impossible to live a life without having encountered some statistically improbable events.

[sunspot]

Let me give a philosophical example. It is assumed that the proton will decompose but only very slowly. There have not been any documented cases of this occurring, that I am aware of, yet this is considered a valid science conclusion based on math. If people were honest about synchronicity the data would be in thousands or tens of thousands, yet this is considered pseudo-science. I guess science much roll dice to determine which is valid without data and which is invalid with data.

 

I am not saying that synchronicity can be rationally explained, only that it occurs more often than events in some areas of science, where limited or reprodcueable data is not considered a problem. This one area of phenomena is irrationally repressed for some reason, and often higher standards are imposed, so science can avoid addressing it. Maybe it is felt to be the superstitiious areas of human experience that science has worked so hard to evolve out of, and any compromise might be seen as step backwards for science.

 

Let me give an example where experiments can and have been run. It is not uncommon for some animals to sense earthquakes before they happen. It has been proposed that maybe they sense subsonic vibrations. By the fact remains, how do the animals extrapolate this into evacuation, especially since it occurs so infrequently. They can not learn from their mistakes, since one mistake in the past can wipe out the animals erasing any learned behavior.

[bascule]

I would like to think there's some bizarre kind of memetic symbiosis whereby memes which survive best when spread together "work" to help hasten each others' spread, and that these can amass into huge memeplexes that cause the hosts they infect to seek out and consume the entire memeplex.

 

I've often wondered if such an effect could provide a mechanism for significant coincidences.

 

The movie I <3 Huckabees really clicked with me...

[Connor]

The fact is that the decay of the proton and other such events you speak of are based on mathematical prediction and repeated observation, and have loads of empirical evidence to back them up (if not on the proton, then on dozens of other particles, so the results can be extended to other particles).

 

"Sychronity" and other sorts of ESP (clairvoyance, telepathy) have never been successfully tested in a controlled laboratory setting, and evidence that supports claims such as these are stained with all sorts of biases, including one that you demonstrated very well with your four examples.

 

I do not personally believe in this sort of thing and will not unless there is solid evidence for it.

[sunspot]

This is a difficult area to discuss for both scientists and the religious alike. This appears to be a common ground where both sort of agree to end the discussion as quickly as possible. Maybe the mindset needed to accept such things are something in the middle, part rationalist, part irrationalist plus a little direct data of the phenomena in question.

 

The example of the proton's decay is something that I believe is valid and valid science. I only used it to demonstrate how some aspects of science are given a little extra liberty without needing hard data and some are not. The strings of String Theory is an another example of something that can not be proven or nor can experiments yets be formulated to attempt to prove them, yet the strings are given the benefit of the doubt because the math seems to work very well. Synchronicity is one of those areas where enough data appears to exists to warrant some rational discussion.

 

At the same time, I realize for any scientist to publically entertain the notion almost amounts to professional suicide. This is a phycho-science forum and maybe the question should be, why is there such strong unconscious resistance to this wide spread data by both the religious and scientific communites?

[Connor]

what data? Give me an example of real data

 

by the way, string theory has been under some assault, and is not at all generally accepted

[sunspot]

What is meant by real data. If someone picks up the phone and knows who it is, that would be a real data point of synchroncity. It may not be reproduceable data with any type of reliability. Dinosaur bones are data from which one extrapolates what the world was like 100-200 millions years ago. Maybe these fossils were the exceptions and not the rule, expecially since the data is so limited. This data is not reproduceable, nor can one use it with 100% certainty, but it is nevertheless valid data.

[dkv]

The deal between nature and observer is very strange.

What it presents as coincidence can be shown to be major life turning moment in one's life.

Aparently making Success look as a series of coincidences.

It happens in case of finding mate or job or starting a new business.

 

Definition of Conincidence depends on your understanding of Complete or limited comprehensibility of Universe.

[lightwave]

I am an electronics engineer and author. I am very scientific and logical in my methods but I experience 'synchronicity' quite often. It's bizarre at times. I won't go into detail here but there is something going on. I have never bothered to conduct any investigation of it.

 

Some events are quite odd, all are 'protecting', some don't seem to have any use at all other than simply alerting me to new ideas.

 

I really can't explain it, nor will I try. Also, apart from a few friends, I never normally speak about this.

 

If anyone wants to know about my experiences then just message me and I may tell. But I am really sure that there are odd things out there.

 

Sunspot produces nice insights. His/her attitude is a good one and explores in a few words many ideas.

[Daecon]

Without syncronicity, most Hollywood movie plots and video game plots wouldn't work.

[reverse]

I think that social groups and the habitual nature of people produce intersecting patterns.

 

Example:

One person in your social group finds a new place to eat…

likes it,

casually mentions it to other members of your wider social group..

and before you know it you coincidentally bump into old friends at that eating place.

There are normal explainable patterns there… but some are every subtle.

 

Also there is the fact of heightened awareness.

Example.

If you have a friend with a particular type of coat…you will notice anyone wearing that type of coat…

If that coat has no significance to you,..

you could walk past twenty in a week and not notice one of them.

[Edtharan]

Humans are patern seeking. We will find patern in most things. As an example, next time you go for a walk, try looking for what appears to be a face in the bark of trees (or paterns on a wall). You will most likely find it, even though there was no face to be seen, and once you have seen it it will almost be imposable for you to not see it again - that is the strength of the patern seeing parts of our brain.

 

Also start looking at events in your life for coincidences or near coincidence and they will crop up very often, simply because you are focusing on them (you are looking for them).

[sunspot]

This pattern making part of the brain shows an example of unconscious projection. In other words, a unconscious pattern becomes projected onto reality allowing both the bark of the tree and the face of Elvis to appear at the same time. When scientists look into the unknowns of space, internal patterns of the mind are often projected and become the basis for theory. The scientific method attempts to remove the subjectity and see if the pattern is real or imaginary.

 

This is actually a good point in that synchronicity may be an artifact of unconscious pattern making. If the unconscious was attemping to make unconscious content conscious, it could make one aware by some pattern that expresses the intent. For example, one may notice a group of birds fly to the west. With synchronisty, this would not so much be something that one's unconscious caused to happen, but rather something the unconscious mind caused one to become aware of, because it reflected some type of internal pattern that has some relevance. This is sort of a link to the language of the unconscious mind.

[Connor]

exactly

 

In established scientific theory, the patterns are verified and analyzed in an objective manner. This does happen in pseudosciences.

[sunspot]

I recognize the projection aspect of synchronicity. There is another side to synchronicity where the pattern projection can have an impact on reality. This enters the realm of meta-physics. It is not so much a ghost but the projection from within having an impact on physical reality to give signs of physical impact to the projection. I am going to start a sister post to this topic, where I will propose an experiment to demonstrate synchronicity. Rather than bury this experiment in this post, I figure it might be better as a topic starter. Seeing is believing.

[Connor]

I'd love to see a verifiable experiment. I'd like to see what you come up with.